TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules on classification of LABFS & LARO under CETH 2710.29. Exemption denied for non-PDS kerosene.</h1> <h3>M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara</h3> M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 334 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of Linear Alkyl Benzene Feed Stock (LABFS) and Low Aluminum Rolling Oil (LARO).2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 75/84-CE.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of LABFS and LARO:The appellant argued that LABFS and LARO should be classified under CETH 2710.29, as both products possess the characteristics specified under this heading. The appellant cited previous judgments, such as CCE vs. IOCL [2003 (157) ELT 41 (Tri.)] and CCE, Bombay vs. Reliance Industries Limited [2000 (119) ELT 26 (Tri. LB)], which support the classification of similar products under CETH 2710.29 when they meet the specified parameters. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating, 'the issue is no more res-integra in view of the case law of CCE vs. IPCL [1990 (46) ELT 173 (Tri.)],' and held that 'products LABFS and LARO will be classifiable under 2710.29 as claimed by the appellant.'2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 75/84-CE:The appellant contended that the term 'Kerosene' in the exemption notification should encompass all mineral oils classified under CETH 2710.29 if they meet the specified parameters. However, the Revenue argued that only Kerosene distributed through the Public Distribution System (PDS) qualifies for the exemption, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in IOCL vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010 (259) ELT 172 (SC)], which emphasized strict interpretation of exemption notifications.The Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's position, highlighting that 'an exemption notification is to be read with words used in the notification' and 'the word Kerosene has to be understood with respect to interpretation/understanding attributed by those who deal in Kerosene.' The Tribunal concluded that 'for the purpose of benefit under exemption notification 75/84-CE only those categories of Kerosene will be eligible which are distributed through PDS.'Conclusion:The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the classification of LABFS and LARO under CETH 2710.29. However, it denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 75/84-CE, affirming that only Kerosene distributed through PDS qualifies for the exemption. The appeals were thus rejected concerning the exemption but allowed concerning the classification.
TaxTMI 